Last edited:
So this morning I attended a seminar in which participants read and discussed Brightman's 1984 article, "Narcissistic Issues in the Training Experience of the Psychotherapist." During the seminar, I expressed annoyance and frustration with psychoanalytic literature, particularly its insistence on utilizing off-putting jargon (e.g., "good breast" / "bad breast") that only seems to further alienate psychoanalytic thinking from the clinical psychological community. I believe there is clinical merit to psychoanalytic theory, especially its modern manifestations, but wish it was presented in a more accessible manner.
Is psychoanalysis going to dig its own grave and die off? Is it possible to bridge the linguistic divide, which mostly seems to be the doing of psychoanalysts themselves, between psychoanalysis and other theoretical orientations (or perhaps inter-theoretical animosity is more deep-seated than linguistics and jargon)? Anyway, I just wanted to put some ideas out there for the SDN community.
I've read research on common factors, but I hadn't heard of transdiagnostic psychotherapy before you mentioned it. I just did some Google searches and it seems
fascinating. Thank you!
What are your thoughts on the sustainability of psychoanalysis proper?
I'd argue classical analysis IS effectively dead.
Who's charging only $100 for a session of psychoanalysis? Even $150 a session is pretty cheap.
The big name I consulted wanted around $50-60k/year.
I live in DC and there seems to be a niche market for psychoanalysis here (I've met about five analysts). I would imagine the same applies to New York City and other East Coast cities.
Yes, I'm well aware of Division 39 (I'm a member) and the upcoming Spring Meeting in New York (I know many individuals who will be presenting). Also, I agree that "patient blaming" is an outdated characterization of psychoanalysis, especially in light of modern relational psychoanalytic theories (e.g., intersubjectivity). That said, it's no secret that psychoanalysts are not doing a great job of making psychoanalytic thinking accessible and/or relevant to theorists and clinicians of different training backgrounds, which I consider quite tragic.
In fact, "Only 15 percent of members in the American Psychoanalytic Association are under 50" (How psychoanalysts are fighting to make their profession relevant). If that trend is accurate, the future of psychoanalysis is bleak at best.